Jump to content

8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure what you mean. 

Any scale that has a cutoff standard for reproduction established by scientists would make my point. 

I"d need clarification.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.  

Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I just don't presume that God does. So when the question of being baptized in the LDS church is asked, God may will either.

When speaking of the practice of rhetoric, this thread might be said to be an example of an immovable rhetorical object coming into active contact with an irresistible rhetorical force, with both elements doomed to push and resist forever in an absurd, never ending stalemate. On one side of this particular exercise in futility are testimony bearing Latter-Day Saints who believe revelation from God has authoritatively answered a great many important questions pertaining to their religion, and on the other are those who either disbelieve or seriously question the divine authenticity and truthfulness of the same revelations.

It’s now obvious that whatever arguments are mustered by those on one side to persuade those on the other are going to utterly fail to have any desired convincing impact. But why? It’s because testimony bearing Latter-Days believe that God has spoken forcefully, clearly, unambiguously on the subject at hand, and that, in fact, they really do happen to believe it. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the argument either no longer believe the scriptures or have serious doubts that they actually are the words of God. Therefore, when believers appeal to holy writ in oder to validate their position the scriptural passages they quote are dismissed as irrelevant by those on the other side.

Wouldn’t it be better to simply agree to disagree rather than attempt to convince believing Latter-day Saints to deny the divine origin and verity of their own canonized revelations? Consider the following revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 68, and then ask yourself why believing Latter-Saints would be willing to budge even a nano centimeter in acquiescence to the arguments made by those on the opposing side? And in light of the fact that eight year-olds (unlike babies) really are capable of understanding the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and that they are also capable of doing things that are morally wrong for which they will need to receive forgiveness, what strong reasoning can be offered to believers that would make them willing to contradict, even slightly, what they revere as the most solemn edicts of God?

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands. (Doctrine and Covenants 68)

 

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 3
Link to post
56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"d need clarification.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.  

Do you believe Science can identify parents who will most likely have children with medically significant genetic disorders or higher probabilities of less than current average intelligence?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
On 8/23/2020 at 9:26 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Someone like the late Joseph Campbell even appreciates the diversity as something of a grand symphony (citing Schopenhauer)

They all come from deep within our shared humanity, simply manifesting different cultures. All come from defining what it is to be human.

I think that actually limits their diversity to some degree.

We are all in this together.

Unless of course we are wondering about what it is like to be a bat. ;)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No science is very good at answering them all, as good as we'll get anyway.  

I suppose that depends on how a person defines what "good" is. Science is essentially a tool for measuring and evaluating things, and the results are only as good as those who use and understand the tool.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why must you stick on an objective measure of well-being.  

Because if morality is said to be objective, then it must be measured objectively.  If the measure of morality (well-being) is subjective, then so is morality.  Just like pain - it is said to be subjective until we have a reliable objective measure for it. 

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I thought you were joking about the morality of natural disasters.  I don't think they fall on the scale of moral and non moral human acts.  

No, I 'm serious.  Human acts are simply acts of nature. We are puppets of nature no different from anything else.  Why is one act of nature said to be moral and another is not?  What is the point.  Seems arbitrary to proscribe morality to human acts of nature and not other acts of nature.

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

we can achieve good things, good ways of viewing things, and good practices through science.  

No doubt...just not salvation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

No doubt...just not salvation. 

Actually, the plan of salvation is totally scientific.  Think about what science is. Then think about what religion is.  It's not as if we can't have or do both at the same time.  

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Actually, the plan of salvation is totally scientific.

 Science would disagree.  

Maybe eternally speaking, once all is said and done, we will be able to look back and scientifically falsify the plan of salvation through a retroactive observational study. But at this point, it is not falsifiable by science. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Science would disagree. 

No, but some so-called scientists would, and have.

p.s.  Here is the scientific method in a nutshell, for those who may not know where science comes from:

Choose an idea and/or problem to research.
Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
Experiment to test hypotheses.
Examine results of the experiment(s).
Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
Share what has been learned.
CHEERS !

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, but some so-called scientists would, and have.

There are scientists who claim to have gained salvation through the study of science?  

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

There are scientists who claim to have gained salvation through the study of science?  

Yes, or in other words through the scientific method of discovery.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, or in other words through the scientific method of discovery.

Care to elaborate?  Science claims to rely on objective measures of falsifiable results.  How does one measure salvation objectively?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Care to elaborate?  Science relies on objective measures of falsifiable results.  How does one measure salvation objectively?

Go for it!  You seem smart enough to figure this out.

Choose an idea and/or problem to research... for example, can God save you?
Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
Experiment to test hypotheses.
Examine results of the experiment(s).
Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
Share what has been learned.
CHEERS !

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Go for i!  You seem smart enough to figure this out.

Choose an idea and/or problem to research... for example, can God save you?
Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
Experiment to test hypotheses.
Examine results of the experiment(s).
Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
Share what has been learned.
CHEERS !

What results am I able examining exactly in terms of salvation that isn't entirely subjective?  What objective measure can scientifically demonstrate which hypothesis is correct?  How can one test all the different hypothesis against a control group?  There seems to be a smorgasborg of subjective claims of salvation.  Nothing objectively measurable though.

Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

What results am I able examining exactly in terms of salvation that isn't entirely subjective?  What objective measure can scientifically demonstrate which hypothesis is correct?  How can one test all the different hypothesis against a control group?  There seems to be a smorgasborg of subjective claims of salvation.  Nothing objectively measurable though.

Do you think some person called a "scientist" has some kind of an advantage over you?  That he or she can somehow measure something objectively, but you can't?  Just do it the way he or she does it.  Objectively or not.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you think some person called a "scientist" has some kind of an advantage over you?  That he or she can somehow measure something objectively, but you can't?  Just do it the way he or she does it.  Objectively or not.

No, I don't suppose a scientist can measure salvation objectively either.   

It can't be "objectively or not".  The claim of science is that it is an objective, unbiased study.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What are inherent assumptions when one does that?

And I did answer the question :)

There are assumptions yes, but they aren't based on our ability to know God's mind, which is what you said you were talking about.

But regardless, it doesn't matter.  This conversation is just getting dumb (if it ever wasn't dumb to begin with) so we can just move on.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I don't suppose a scientist can measure salvation objectively either.   

I suppose it depends upon how one defines objectivity, then, because, as you say...

Quote

It can't be "objectively or not".  The claim of science is that it is an objective, unbiased study.

...so how do they do it?  How do they objectively study anything and everything they study when they use the scientific method? 

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
On 8/21/2020 at 5:09 AM, Meadowchik said:

Yet the church teaches a very narrow path. It sends missionaries out to teach people including people who are happy in their own beliefs to leave those commitments and join the covenant path of the church, making LDS-specific covenants, seeking LDS-specific relationships and joining LDS communities. Of course LDS theology has the teaching in the Spirit World, but this does not contradict my point: 

A person in Tokyo might be following a wonderful Shinto path, so when the LDS missionaries approach them, teach them, and invite them to baptism, they are also asking them to reject any of the practices that they cannot follow while also living the LDS religion. The person could accept the missionaries' invitation, rejecting their former path. Or they might continue on their Shinto path, rejecting the LDS invitation. Either path offers different experiences, and each one means a rejection of certain life experiences.

 

Jesus made very unique and exclusive claims when He declared that "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except thru Me". It renders all other "paths" or "experiences" irrelevant when it comes to the Kingdom of God. We have been commanded to preach the Gospel across the earth and that is what we do, in faith, obedience and in love. 

Again, The Savior warned that we must we willing to leave behind ALL other competing priorities if we are to be His disciples. That includes familial, cultural and religious affiliations. (Luke 14:33, Matt 16:24, among others).

In Matt. 7:13-14 the Savior points to "the ways of the world" vs His way. He unequivocally stated that few will find it. For most preferences the easy way, the broad road, their own way, their familiar and appealing way. But it leads to perdition. 

So, yes; the LDS theology, practices and community are designed to help you break away from "your way" and onto the Savior's way. That you may find God's peace and happiness which the worlds knows not, and unto eternal life and salvation. 

But, anyone is entitled to his/her own will and at the end one always receives the desires of one's heart. If you reject God and the message of the Gospel of His Son, at the end that is what you'll have. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

No, I don't suppose a scientist can measure salvation objectively either.   

It can't be "objectively or not".  The claim of science is that it is an objective, unbiased study.

And thus cannot inquire into the significance of anything in anyone's life, since that is subjective, including the gospel.

It's useless to try to find objective evidence for spiritual truth, unless it is statistically significant to the community of believers.

In that sense of objective, we are quite comfortable.

There's no disputing someone's testimony of the value of the gospel in their lives. That is the only objective measure possible in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 8/21/2020 at 12:05 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Aside from preventing future crime from that individual, jail serves as a deterrent even in a deterministic world view. Fewer people will commit crimes if they know there will be significant consequences for their actions. 

Statistics would contradict that assertion. The 3-strikes law in CA was repealed precisely because it did not deter nor did it decrease recidivism as intended. By far, the US incarcerated a larger percentage of its population compare with ALL other countries. And that had no effect, over all, in crime in general. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unless of course we are wondering about what it is like to be a bat

The real question: does God know what it's like to be a bat?

I honestly think no. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Islander said:

Jesus made very unique and exclusive claims when He declared that "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except thru Me". It renders all other "paths" or "experiences" irrelevant when it comes to the Kingdom of God. We have been commanded to preach the Gospel across the earth and that is what we do, in faith, obedience and in love. 

Again, The Savior warned that we must we willing to leave behind ALL other competing priorities if we are to be His disciples. That includes familial, cultural and religious affiliations. (Luke 14:33, Matt 16:24, among others).

In Matt. 7:13-14 the Savior points to "the ways of the world" vs His way. He unequivocally stated that few will find it. For most preferences the easy way, the broad road, their own way, their familiar and appealing way. But it leads to perdition. 

So, yes; the LDS theology, practices and community are designed to help you break away from "your way" and onto the Savior's way. That you may find God's peace and happiness which the worlds knows not, and unto eternal life and salvation. 

But, anyone is entitled to his/her own will and at the end one always receives the desires of one's heart. If you reject God and the message of the Gospel of His Son, at the end that is what you'll have. 

I'm saying that when one accepts LDS baptism, they are also rejecting other paths which can be righteous. There are millions of people in the world who have committed to follow Jesus but not through LDS baptism.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...